"T i m" wrote in message
...
Funny,

I was actually going to ask a (OT) question on the same subject.

Would someone care to explain to me what all the fuss is about re the
Olympics (wherever it's held?).

*My* view is its a load of hype over nothing .. like the announcement
re the winning City .. why did that have to be turned into a TV game
show? (But I feel the same re football / rugby etc etc).

And what is it actually about .. folk running / jumping rowing
whatever faster longer further than anyone else? (I'm not into 'sport'
you can tell .. I do walk, cycle, row and sail for fun though).

So, what's it going to do for me .. well living 5 miles away from
part of the projected developement area just MORE congestion and loss
of public park?

"We can't build there it's public park / green-belt!"
"It's for the Olympics, we can do what we like ..."

And look at all the excitement from the kids .. the chance of working
hard for 7 years to compete in .. em .. London .. (for 2 weeks!) ;-(

Oh well, as long as it keeps them off the streets / drugs etc ...

All the best ..

T i m

I'm going to ruin your day, Tim, I agree with you.

Mary

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:42:17 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:



I'm going to ruin your day, Tim, I agree with you.

faints ;-)

T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
So, what's it going to do for me .. well living 5 miles away from
part of the projected developement area just MORE congestion and loss
of public park?

With luck you'll end up with better underground and overground links.

I occasionally have to work at Three Mills studios which isn't a million
miles from there and would love an easy way of getting there by public
transport. The south circular isn't a nice place to be in rush hour.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:23:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
So, what's it going to do for me .. well living 5 miles away from
part of the projected developement area just MORE congestion and loss
of public park?

With luck you'll end up with better underground and overground links.

Wombling free?


I occasionally have to work at Three Mills studios which isn't a million
miles from there and would love an easy way of getting there by public
transport. The south circular isn't a nice place to be in rush hour.

Does the South Circular actually exist? I've never been able to
follow it for any distance..... It just seems to be a loose
collection of ordinary roads.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:23:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
So, what's it going to do for me .. well living 5 miles away
from
part of the projected developement area just MORE congestion and
loss
of public park?

With luck you'll end up with better underground and overground
links.

Wombling free?

There will be no 'back-handers' with our Olympics....



I occasionally have to work at Three Mills studios which isn't a
million
miles from there and would love an easy way of getting there by
public
transport. The south circular isn't a nice place to be in rush
hour.

Does the South Circular actually exist? I've never been able to
follow it for any distance..... It just seems to be a loose
collection of ordinary roads.


That is exactly what the North and south circular is, hence why it's
really called a route and not a road - it is signed either 'North
Circular' or 'South Circular' though.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I occasionally have to work at Three Mills studios which isn't a million
miles from there and would love an easy way of getting there by public
transport. The south circular isn't a nice place to be in rush hour.

Does the South Circular actually exist? I've never been able to
follow it for any distance..... It just seems to be a loose
collection of ordinary roads.

Know what you mean, but surely it's well enough sign posted?

It sort of turns into a 'proper' road just east of Catford.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andy Hall wrote:

With luck you'll end up with better underground and overground links.


Wombling free?

LOL! ;-)

They would make interesting "ball wombles" at the all england club as well!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:23:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
So, what's it going to do for me .. well living 5 miles away from
part of the projected developement area just MORE congestion and loss
of public park?

With luck you'll end up with better underground and overground links.

Well I suppose we could .. (not that I use them .. I avoid public
transport wherever possible as I can't avoid the cost nor time). Given
the choice I'd rather take the motorcycle, cycle or walk! (possibly a
reaction to 10 years commuting into the City) ;-(

I occasionally have to work at Three Mills studios which isn't a million
miles from there and would love an easy way of getting there by public
transport. The south circular isn't a nice place to be in rush hour.

Nice place .. but right at the lower end of the Lea.

If we cycle along the towpath from here we can go North or South. We
have gone South only a couple of times because (as mentioned
elsewhere) it's a bit industrial (there are some good bits though).
One good reason for going South would be to cycle to London Zoo etc.
Going North is pretty well green and clean[1] as far as you (or your
family more like) would want to cycle in a day (40 mile round trip)
;-)

All the best ..

T i m

[1] 'Clean' except for the rubbish left by (some) 'fishermen' .. ;-(

In message , T i m
writes
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:23:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
So, what's it going to do for me .. well living 5 miles away from
part of the projected developement area just MORE congestion and loss
of public park?

With luck you'll end up with better underground and overground links.

Well I suppose we could .. (not that I use them .. I avoid public
transport wherever possible

Sensible decision today


--
geoff

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:29:39 GMT, raden wrote:

Well I suppose we could .. (not that I use them .. I avoid public
transport wherever possible

Sensible decision today

Possibly .. still, even though they are cowardly b******s we ("Great
Britian") don't have a completely clean history do we ;-(

All the best ..

T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
With luck you'll end up with better underground and overground links.

Well I suppose we could .. (not that I use them .. I avoid public
transport wherever possible as I can't avoid the cost nor time). Given
the choice I'd rather take the motorcycle, cycle or walk! (possibly a
reaction to 10 years commuting into the City) ;-(

Ok - but better public transport removes traffic from the roads, so
everyone wins.

--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:00:19 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
With luck you'll end up with better underground and overground links.

Well I suppose we could .. (not that I use them .. I avoid public
transport wherever possible as I can't avoid the cost nor time). Given
the choice I'd rather take the motorcycle, cycle or walk! (possibly a
reaction to 10 years commuting into the City) ;-(

Ok - but better public transport removes traffic from the roads, so
everyone wins.

Well, *some* traffic of course but I can't see us getting such in my
lifetime?

For every new housing estate they build there is more congestion. What
they don't seem to do is put the services / transport in FIRST and
once the buildings are up they are reluctant to knock them down to put
train lines in?

It is my belief that in other countries if they want to build a train
lkine from A to B they draw a straight line and build it, knocking
down whatever is in the way (within reason). Over here we twist and
turn around a cottage here and farmyard there, forcing the line to be
'poor' for time eternal?

I must admit I'm not a train 'fan' (never have been), always had my
own transport from 17 and would rather 'endure' driving from say here
(London) to my girlfriend in Crewe by Morry Minor van than all the
cost / aggro of going by train (and we had some transport once we got
there).

For me the only time public transport makes sense is if we (the
family) are on one of our motorcycle / camping / touring holidays and
we wan't to out as tourists for the day then we might get the bus /
train / taxi.

1) Because they are on time
2) Because they are clean
3) Because they are empty
4) It means we don't have to wear leathers ;-)

I would rather go into the City by motorbike in spite of the gear /
traffic / stress / parking because I could start and leave on time
(when I wanted) and could at least sit down for the entire journey ;-)

The only way I see for an improvement on our local line is to

Run more trains (not easy I'm told).

Make the trains longer (some platforms too short)

Get people to work / time shift (spead the load through the day)

Get people to consider working locally?

"Ah but we get a better quality of life and can buy a bigger house if
we live in the sticks" .. yes, if you count 4 hours commuting a day
and the cost of that to you / your family/ the environment 'better' ?

I'd rather work locally for 20k than in the 'City' for 30 ..

All the best ..

T i m

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Ok - but better public transport removes traffic from the roads, so
everyone wins.

IMO a large piece of wishful thinking. From day 1, passenger railways
have been insolvent. There is not one public transport unit in the world
which is economically viable. The only way to get better public
transport is to increase taxation on the majority of the population who
don't use it and waste the money on a few people who do. If public
transport were a private industry as are airlines and ships, then there
would be no problem in the provision of the service, as the fares would
have to be economic, which would actually force most of the passengers
to work elsewhere, as they and their employers could not afford the
required wage costs. This of course would disperse offices etc from
London and other large town centres to the rest of the country which IMO
would be a very good thing. It would actually reduce traffic in many
cases as journey distances would be much shorter. It is of interest to
note, that sales of delivery vehicles in 2004 rose rapidly(by 25%IIRC)
as the customers(having given up dirty, unsavoury, unreliable public
transport) move over to internet and mail order shopping rather than
face the hassle of inadequate car parking when town centre shopping! So
public transport is almost entirely occupied in taking people to a place
of work! Public transport is a concept which has had its day but the
British political classes are unwilling to face the facts-- nothing new
there!! This shopping pattern change, of course, also reflects the
desire of consumers to not have to struggle with large objects, now that
the shops cannot afford to deliver to their local customers as a result
of absurdly high fixed town centre operating costs.

Regards
Capitol

Doctor Evil wrote:

.....because Tone and Ken made all the difference. Isn't that great.


Does this mean that you personally will pay all the necessary extra tax
to pay for it? Or is it another New Labour national tax increase?

Sad day for the working people!

Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Doctor Evil wrote:

.....because Tone and Ken made all the difference. Isn't that great.

Does this mean that you personally
will pay all the necessary extra tax
to pay for it?

No. Only the people of London.

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
news.net...
.....because Tone and Ken made all the difference. Isn't that great.



Actually I'd put it 60% down to Seb Coe for a great presentation and 40%
down to Bob Geldof for reminding the world that London might be worth
visiting.

Mike wrote:
"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
news.net...

.....because Tone and Ken made all the difference. Isn't that great.




Actually I'd put it 60% down to Seb Coe for a great presentation and 40%
down to Bob Geldof for reminding the world that London might be worth
visiting.


So we now know who really to blame ..

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
news.net...
.....because Tone and Ken made all the difference. Isn't that great.

No!

Alan